Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff invoked articles 262 and following of the Loi sur les élections et les référendums dans les municipalités (LERM) to request a judicial recount.

• The only remaining allegation was a discrepancy between the number of votes for mayor and the number of voters in district 5.

• Plaintiff’s claims lacked specific details about the number of ballots affected or how the alleged irregularity could have changed the result.

• The court applied the presumption of regularity regarding the work of election officials.

• Jurisprudence cited required a reasonable probability, not mere possibility, of irregularity affecting the outcome.

• The court found the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient and rejected the application.

Facts and outcome of Saulnier c. Villeneuve 2025 QCCQ 6772

Gilles Saulnier, the plaintiff and a defeated candidate for councillor in the municipality of Morin-Heights for district 5, filed an application on November 2, 2025, seeking a judicial recount. Saulnier relied on articles 262 and following of the Loi sur les élections et les référendums dans les municipalités (LERM). He initially alleged several irregularities in the conduct of election staff, including impartiality and competence issues, but during the hearing, his counsel withdrew all but one of these allegations.

The sole remaining allegation was that the vote tallies for the mayoral position did not match the number of voters in district 5. Specifically, the mayoral position was attributed 1,564 votes, while only 1,562 people voted in the district. Additionally, there was a margin of three votes between the two leading candidates and 81 rejected ballots.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that irregularities had occurred which could justify a new count. It emphasized that the law presumes the regularity of the work of election officials and that only detailed and specific allegations, supported by prima facie evidence, can justify a recount. The court found that Saulnier’s remaining allegations were vague and did not specify how many ballots were at issue or how any irregularity could have affected the final result. The jurisprudence cited by the court required more than the mere possibility of an error; there had to be a reasonable probability that an irregularity occurred and impacted the outcome.

Finding the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient and lacking in detail, the court rejected the application. Saulnier’s request for a judicial recount was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the court costs. No specific monetary amount for the costs was stated in the judgment, and no damages were awarded. The successful party was the defendant, Anne Villeneuve, as well as the parties named as “mis en cause.”